🔗 Share this article

Entering the planet's most popular art institution in broad daylight, taking eight items of invaluable Napoleonic jewellery and vanishing into the city traffic on humble scooters may seem like the most audacious of crimes, carried out for global fame and subsequent Hollywood film treatments.

Specialists who observe trends in international art crime, however, see Sunday morning’s heist at the Louvre as something more prosaic: the most recent in a string of smash-and-grab thefts focused more on the material value of precious stones or materials than the artifacts’ significance, continuing a pattern that has appeared over the last ten years in Germany, Britain and the US. The location, they suggest, would have been of secondary concern to the thieves.

“One might wonder why thieves who want to take valuable jewellery are entering a world-famous museum rather than a Cartier store,” stated an expert in art recovery. “The answer is simple: it’s because nowadays a high-end boutique is better protected.”

A series of aggressive retail store thefts mean that many outlets have strengthened their security in recent years, with security personnel on their premises and merchandise no longer shown overnight. Cultural institutions, on the other hand, look vulnerable, partly because of the inherent reason of being accessible institutions in historic buildings, and also the financial situation in many developed nations.

“After the pandemic, governments across the world have reduced spending on law enforcement and the arts funding,” noted Marinello. “With criminals entering the Louvre, it shows how vulnerable our museums have become. This is a difficult time to be a museum.”

The theft of the objects – including necklaces made up of precious stones and 631 diamonds, the tiara of Empress Eugénie containing thousands of diamonds and a hugely valuable diadem once possessed by Napoleon III’s wife that the thieves dropped by the street on their way out – has naturally drawn comparisons with the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, performed by the worker Vincenzo Peruggia.

Better comparisons may be the 2019 burglary of jewellery from Dresden’s Green Vault Museum worth over €113m, the theft of a £4.75m gold toilet from Blenheim Palace the that year, the recent heist of a large gold coin from Berlin’s Bode Museum or even a spate of thefts of collector items from US mining museums.

“There’s a simple pattern here,” explained Marinello. “Break in, take items, and dismantle them as rapidly as possible.”

If the artefacts were to stay whole, experts say, the thieves would find it hard to sell them. “There’s no way to trade something as recognizable as the museum's gems on the legal marketplace”, commented Lynda Albertson of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art.

“They would be immediately recognised, especially given the cultural authorities has published photos of the items. Even a private collector or an sales venue would want to see paperwork confirming legal possession before handling such remarkable pieces.”

In the previous years, institutions were often reluctant to go public about the loss of famous art pieces and would stay silent out of shame. Now, as cultural robberies are more reported on, the keeping and sale of taken items is dangerous for any lawbreaker.

“Taking a Picasso, it has to remain intact or it becomes worthless, and you have to conceive of a scheme to keep it in hiding, maybe by passing it around dangerous individuals,” said Marinello. “And you’re constantly exposed to the danger of an partner informing authorities to collect a ransom.”

For similar reasons, an investigator said it was vanishingly unlikely that the theft had been commissioned. “Stolen to order is something from films,” he said. “No one would handle these items. It's global news and in all the media. If you buy this, if you are apprehended, you end up in prison. You cannot show it to your friends, you cannot bequeath it to your family.”

Altering stolen works by dismantling or re-cutting does reduce the worth. When it comes to diamonds, it also comes with considerable risk because contemporary methods give stones a larger and lighter surface area, and older-style stones would either attract notice or reduce value for a concealment.

Importantly, however, melting down or reshaping eliminates the proof of the crime. “My guess is that the robbers will try to bring the stolen goods to places with gem knowledge like a country, India or even as close as a city, and find someone to remove the stones,” suggested Marinello.

The robbery at the Louvre has already brought up concerns about security measures at the institution, with a leaked official review expected to be released next month criticising “significant” and “persistent” slow progress in modernizing equipment and observing that surveillance were missing in many rooms. But security experts say displaying precious items in older structures with a constant flow of visitors comes with risks that are impossible to eliminate completely.

“Historic buildings are much harder to secure,” explained Erin Thompson. “They often have nice big street-facing windows that makes it easy for thieves to get away, and there may be building protection statutes in place that mean you are unable to install them with secure windows.”

The best security systems for buildings should be conceptualised “like a fortress”, said Peter Stürmann. “There should be several layers to repel intruders.”

Modern buildings are equipped with advanced surveillance systems or integrated seismic detectors that alert about a smashed window in real time, but old museums may be hesitant to uglify their exteriors. Laser scanners can be difficult to fit to decorated surfaces. Sensors may also have to be turned off during the daytime as crowds stomp through a museum.

The timing of the Louvre raid, which occurred between morning hours in Paris, was common of modern robberies, Stürmann said. “It's logical why robberies tend to happen at either start or end of day. It’s often when security rotate and before the museum is crowded who effectively act as additional security staff.”

Advances in technology may have thrown up new gadgets that can raise the alarm more quickly and efficiently, but it has also provided thieves new tools with which to circumvent security measures. In the city, the robbers accessed the museum’s first-floor window with a vehicle-mounted ladder and breached a window with a battery-powered disc cutter.

An author said the discussion in the country about the historic building had primarily centered on visitor management in the past decade, and less on security.

The institution has an on-site team of about fifty full-time emergency personnel, but their purpose is mainly to protect the artworks from fires and water damage. “There isn't a rapid-response unit,” Sciolino said. “In the end, the safety of the Louvre all depends on political will and funding, and at present the nation lacks sufficient money.”